coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
9.  The applicant was born in 1935 and lives in Wrocław, Poland.
10. On 28 March 1991 Ms S. filed with the Oleśno District Court an action in which she sought the distribution of an inheritance and the dissolution of the co-ownership of the inherited property. The applicant was one of the heirs to that property.
11. The court held hearings on 15 May, 28 August and 14 November 1991, 29 January, 22 April, 27 May and 30 September 1992, 23 February and 7 June 1993, 28 March and 25 April 1994, 28 June 1995, 27 March and 7 August 1996, 6 January, 17 November and 11 December 1997, as well as 3 June and 22 June 1998.
12. On 4 March 1999 the hearing was adjourned because of the absence of the applicant's lawyer.
13. Further hearings were held on 30 March, 23 April, 5 May, 11 May, 23 June, 14 July and 28 July 1999.
14. The hearing scheduled for 8 September 1999 was adjourned because of an illness of a court expert.
15. The court held hearings on 14 October and 30 December 1999, 17 January, 29 March, 20 April, 28 April, 18 May, 23 May and 16 June 2000.
16. On 20 June 2000, in reply to the applicant's complaint about the excessive length of the proceedings, the President of the Częstochowa Regional Court noted that the delay resulted from the complexity of the case, the parties' numerous requests concerning evidence and their petitions challenging expert opinions. She admitted that the court experts had failed to issue their opinions within the time-limits. The President considered that in one of such cases, in 1997, the court had failed to use disciplinary measures against the expert. She finally informed the applicant that she had instituted proceedings which could result in the dismissal of certain experts.
17. On 8 November 2000 the Oleśno District Court imposed a fine on an expert for his non-compliance with the time-limit for issuing his opinion.
18. On 10 January 2001 the court quashed its decision of 8 November 2000.
19. On the same day the court summoned certain individuals to participate in the proceedings.
20. On 20 February 2001 it stayed the proceedings because of the death of one of the participants. On 5 June 2001 the court resumed the examination of the case.
21. It held hearings on 6 July 2001 and 4 January 2002. The hearings scheduled for 15 February and 27 March 2002 were adjourned because of the absence of Ms S. Hearings were held on 29 May and 20 September 2002.
22. On 2 April 2003 the court served a copy of an expert opinion on the applicant for observations.
23. On 3 June 2003 the Oleśno District Court gave a judgment on the merits.
24. On 16 December 2003 the Opole Regional Court dismissed an appeal against that judgment.
25. By a decision of 28 June 2004 the Supreme Court declined to examine the cassation appeal, considering that it had not been shown that arguable public interest grounds existed which would justify the examination of the appeal.
5.  The first and fifth applicants were born in 1960. The second applicant was born in 1959. The third applicant was born in 1969. The fourth applicant was born in 1945. The sixth applicant was born in 1965. The applicants are nationals of Ukraine and reside in Beryslav, the Kherson Region.
6.  In April 1998 the applicants initiated proceedings in the Beryslav City Court (the “Beryslav Court”) against the Department of Education of the Beryslav Municipal Council (the “Department”), seeking to recover an additional salary payment allegedly due to them for their time-in-service.
7.  On 13 May 1998 the Beryslav Court allowed the applicants' claims and ordered the Department to pay the applicants the additional salary (time-in-service bonuses). In particular, it ordered that the first applicant be paid UAH 570.85[1] in compensation, the second – UAH 367.52[2], the third – UAH 204.3[3], the fourth – UAH 863.4[4], the fifth – UAH 561.4[5], and the sixth applicant – UAH 292.3[6].
8.  On 18 May 1998 the Beryslav City Bailiffs' service (the “Bailiffs”) initiated enforcement proceedings for the judgment of 13 May 1998.
9.  On 2 August 1999 the Beryslav Court suspended the execution of the judgment for three months due to the lack of funds in the budget of the Department.
10.  On 7 March 2001 the Bailiffs informed the applicants that the Beryslav Court had suspended the execution of the judgment of 13 May 1998. On 13 August 2002 the Bailiffs informed the applicants that the judgment of 13 May 1998 would be executed when the State had provided the necessary budgetary funding. The judgment remained unenforced due to the Department's lack of funds.
11.  On 31 July 2003 the amounts due to them pursuant to the judgment of 13 May 1998 were transferred to the applicants. They received the following amounts (the initial sums awarded by that judgment having been subjected to taxation): the first applicant – UAH 401.2[7], the second applicant – UAH 276.35[8], the third applicant – UAH 173.18[9], the fourth applicant – UAH 640.46[10], the fifth applicant – UAH 419.94[11], and the sixth applicant – UAH 242.98[12].
4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in the district of Kuşadası in the province of Aydın.
5.  On 9 June 1989 the Kuşadası District Council (hereinafter “the Council”) and the applicant signed an agreement. By virtue of this agreement the Council unconditionally allocated part of the historic castle in Kuşadası to the applicant to open and run a museum for an indefinite period. On 18 July 1989 the applicant was issued with a special title deed to the property enabling him to open the museum.
6.  On 26 May 1990 the museum was opened to the public following the grant of a licence by the Ministry of Culture.
7.  On 22 April 1991 the Council annulled the agreement of 9 June 1989 on the ground that the applicant had not signed a protocol with the Mayor of Kuşadası within 15 days from the date of the opening of the museum. Pursuant to such a protocol the applicant would have undertaken to pay the Council 40% of the money generated from the sale of the entrance tickets to visitors to the museum. Items displayed in the museum were removed from the museum by the Council's employees.
8.  On 27 June 1991 the applicant brought an action before the Aydın Administrative Court requesting the annulment of the Council's decision of 22 April 1991.
9.  On 12 November 1991 the Aydın Administrative Court annulled the decision on the ground that the Council had never informed the applicant about the protocol or warned him about its intention to rescind the agreement. The Council appealed against the decision.
10.  On 2 May 1995 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the Aydın Administrative Court's decision of 12 November 1991.
11.  On 28 September 1995 the Aydın Administrative Court acceded to the Supreme Administrative Court's decision and rejected the applicant's request to annul the Council's decision. The court noted that a clause in the initial agreement between the Council and the applicant had stipulated that 40% of the income would be handed over to the Council. The court further observed that the applicant had been reminded by the Council about this clause on 24 May 1990 and had been urged to sign the protocol.
12.  On 27 February 1997 the Supreme Administrative Court rejected the applicant's appeal.
13.  On 3 April 1997 the applicant applied to the Supreme Administrative Court and requested the rectification of the latter's decision of 27 February 1997.
14.  On 23 December 1998 the Supreme Administrative Court refused the applicant's request for rectification.
4.  The applicants were born in 1935 and 1968 respectively and live in Saint‑Petersburg.
5.  The applicants invested money in the construction of a block of flats. The contractors failed to provide the applicants with a flat in time.
6.  On 26 August 1996 the applicants brought an action against the contractors before the Primorskiy District Court of Saint-Petersburg (“the district court”).
7.  The district court initiated proceedings in the case on 6 December 1996, after the applicants had paid a court fee.
8.  On 10 February 1998 the district court refused to entertain the application because of the applicants' alleged failure to attend hearings. This decision was not served on the applicants.
9.  On 23 June 1998 the applicants, who claimed that they had never been summoned, appealed and asked for the restoration of the relevant time limit.
10.  On 26 November 1998 the Saint-Petersburg City Court quashed the district court's decision of 10 February 1998 as unlawful in view of the lack of evidence that the applicants had ever been summoned to the hearings. It ordered the district court to examine the case.
11.  On 31 December 1998 the district court scheduled a hearing for 31 March 1999.
12.  The hearing was adjourned on 31 March 1999 to 8 July 1999 and on 8 July 1999 to 8 December 1999 on the ground of the defendants' failure to appear.
13.  On 8 December 1999 the hearing was adjourned to 3 May 2000 as the judge was ill.
14.  On 3 May 2000 the hearing was adjourned to 30 November 2000 because of the failure of the defendants to appear.
15.  During 1999‑2000 the applicants filed a number of complaints with the district court, the Saint-Petersburg City Court and the Supreme Court requesting the acceleration of the examination of their case.
16.  On 30 November 2000 the hearing was adjourned to 9 March 2001 as the judge was ill.
17.  Between 9 March 2001 and 31 October 2001 the hearing was adjourned twice at the request of both parties.
18.  On 31 October 2001 the hearing was adjourned to 11 February 2002 because the defendant failed to appear.
19.  On 11 April 2002 the district court examined the case and rejected the applicants' claim for a flat on the ground that all the flats in the block in question had already been distributed among other investors. The court noted that as regards the investments made, the applicants' interests were protected in the framework of ongoing bankruptcy proceedings against the contractors.
20.  On 15 April 2002 the applicants appealed.
21.  On 14 November 2002 the Saint-Petersburg City Court upheld the judgment.
6.  The details concerning the applicants are contained in the Court's files and may be consulted in the Court archives.
7.  Each applicant failed to pay sums due in respect of either local taxes (community charge, council tax or non-domestic rates), or court-imposed fines. In respect of the failure to pay local taxes, the magistrates' court had in each case determined that the applicants were liable to pay (issuing a liability order); in fines cases, the magistrates' court had imposed the fine as the sentence followed a criminal conviction.
8.  Each applicant fell into arrears with the payments due from them. These cases involved the enforcement proceedings in respect of their arrears in the magistrates' court. Each applicant appeared before the court, following the issuing of an application for their committal to prison as a result of their failure to pay the sums due. At that hearing the magistrates found that the non-payment was due to the applicant's wilful refusal or culpable neglect. As a result each applicant was sentenced to a period of imprisonment. The sentence was suspended on terms that the applicant makes periodic payments towards the outstanding sum. When the applicant failed to comply with the terms imposed, a further hearing was held in the magistrates' court at which the suspended term of imprisonment was activated. Each applicant spent a period of time in prison.
9.  Legal aid was not available for the enforcement proceedings prior to 1 June 1997 and none of the applicants were legally represented at the hearings in front of the magistrates.
10.  Following their imprisonment, an application was made on behalf of each applicant, by way of either judicial review or case stated, which resulted in the High Court quashing the orders made by the magistrates. In three cases (Parker (46416/99), Daldry (58896/00), Dann (3859/02)), the orders of the magistrates were quashed in a judgment of the High Court. In the remaining cases the orders were quashed following the High Court's approval of a consent order agreed between the applicants and the magistrates who had sentenced them.
9.  The applicant, Ayten Ünal Tekeli, is a Turkish national, born in 1965 and living in İzmir.
10.  After her marriage on 25 December 1990 the applicant, who was then a trainee lawyer, took her husband’s name pursuant to Article 153 of the Turkish Civil Code. As she was known by her maiden name in her professional life, she continued putting it in front of her legal surname. However, she could not use both names together on official documents.
11.  On 22 February 1995 the applicant brought proceedings in the Karşıyaka Court of First Instance (“the Court of First Instance”) for permission to use only her maiden name, “Ünal”. On 4 April 1995 the Court of First Instance dismissed the applicant’s request on the ground that, under Article 153 of the Turkish Civil Code, married women had to bear their husband’s name throughout their married life.
12.  An appeal by the applicant on points of law was dismissed by the Court of Cassation on 6 June 1995. The decision was served on the applicant on 23 June 1995.
13.  By one of the amendments made to Article 153 of the Civil Code on 14 May 1997, married women acquired the right to put their maiden name in front of their husband’s surname. The applicant preferred not to make use of that possibility because, in her view, the amendment in question did not satisfy her demand, which was to use her maiden name alone as her surname.
On 22 November 2001 the new Civil Code was enacted. Article 187 was worded identically to the former Article 153.
4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Zadar, Croatia.
5.  On 15 July 1995 he lent 40,000 German marks to Z.G. and G.G. on the condition that the loan be repaid within 15 days of a request for repayment.
6.  On 25 August 1995 Z.G. and G.G. died. Subsequently, proceedings concerning the inheritance of their estate commenced before the Zadar Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zadru).
7.  On 4 October 1995 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Zadar Municipal Court against I.G. and M.G. (Z.G. and G.G.’s children) claiming repayment of the loan.
8.  I.G. and M.G. were absent from the first hearing of 30 October 1995 as they had not been summoned.
9.  The second hearing was held on 20 November 1995 in the presence of the applicant and M.G.
10.  On 12 June 1997 and on 16 July 1998 the applicant requested the court to deal with his claim as soon as possible.
11.  At the third hearing on 17 November 1998 the court requested the applicant to submit some additional information.
12.  At the fourth hearing of 18 May 1999 the court stayed the proceedings pending the completion of the inheritance proceedings indicated in paragraph 6 above.
13.  On 4 June 1999 the applicant submitted the information requested on 17 November 1998.
14.  On 24 June 1999 the applicant again requested the court to deal with his claim as soon as possible.
15.  I.G. and M.G. did not appear at the fifth hearing of 2 September 1999 although they were duly summoned.
16.  At the sixth hearing on 21 September 1999 the court adjourned the trial sine die pursuant to a request of the representative of I.G. and M.G.
17.  On 26 September 2001 the inheritance proceedings ended and the proceedings for repayment of the loan resumed on 10 January 2002.
18.  On 6 February 2002 the court held the seventh hearing and, on the same date, gave its judgment allowing the applicant’s claim. That judgment became final because no appeal was lodged.
19.  On 17 April 2002 the applicant obtained an order enforcing the judgment.
20.  On 6 November 2002 the applicant requested the court to speed up the enforcement proceedings.
21.  On 9 December 2003 the court scheduled for January 2004 an on-site assessment of the value of an apartment belonging to I.G. and M.G. An expert appointed by the court was not able to enter the apartment as I.G. and M.G. were not present. Nevertheless, the expert assessed the value of the apartment and submitted his report to the court on 2 February 2004.
22.  On 17 May 2004 the court established the value of the apartment.
23.  On 20 July 2004 the court held the first auction but the apartment was not sold.
24.  The enforcement proceedings are still pending.
8.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Tamsweg, Austria.
9.  On 3 July 2000 the Innsbruck Regional Court (Landesgericht), sitting as a court with two professional and two lay judges (Schöffengericht), acquitted the applicant of charges of drug trafficking on a large scale and other offences under the Drugs Act (Suchtmittelgesetz) on the basis of the principle in dubio pro reo. It dismissed the applicant’s request to hear further witnesses, finding that there was no additional evidence necessary to prove the lack of credibility of the incriminating statement.
10.  Immediately after the pronouncement of the acquittal, and at the same hearing, the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s request for compensation for his detention on remand from 2 May 1999 until 23 December 1999 and from 27 December 1999 to 22 May 2000.
It found that “pursuant to Section 2 (1)(b) of the Criminal Proceedings Compensation Act 1969 (Strafrechtliches Entschädigungsgesetz 1969 - “the 1969 Act”) compensation for detention on remand [might] be granted if the accused had been acquitted and the suspicion that he had committed the offence has been dispelled.“ Further, it found that “the requirements for granting compensation for detention on remand under Section 2 (1)(b) of the 1969 Act were not met as the applicant was only acquitted on the basis of the principle in dubio pro reo”.
11.  On 19 September 2000 the Innsbruck Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) dismissed the applicant’s appeal. Referring to the case of Sekanina v. Austria (judgment of 25 August 1993, Series A no. 266-A, pp.15-16, § 30), it considered that only a decision which, following the accused’s acquittal, expressed the view that the latter was guilty could violate the presumption of innocence, and that in the present case no such additional finding on the suspicion against the applicant had been made. Moreover, it found that, considering the incriminating statement of witness P.R., a suspicion against the applicant persisted.
12.  On 11 August 2004 the Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof), upon the Procurator General’s plea of nullity for the preservation of law (Nichtigkeitsbeschwerde zur Wahrung des Gesetzes), quashed the decisions of the Regional Court and the Court of Appeal and remitted the case to the Regional Court. It found that the courts’ failure to hold a public hearing in the compensation proceedings and to announce the decisions in public violated the applicant’s rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. It also noted that, in the subsequent proceedings, the Regional Court would have to decide on the applicant’s compensation claim in the light of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights in respect of the voicing of a suspicion following an acquittal, within the meaning of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention.
5.  The applicant, who was born in 1936, lives in Petrinja, Croatia.
6.  The applicant was the owner of a house in Petrinja where he had lived until August 1995 when he left Croatia due to military actions in that area.
7.  On 23 September 1995 Parliament enacted a law providing that the property of persons who left Croatia was to be taken into possession of the State. It also entitled the local authorities temporarily to accommodate refugees and displaced persons in such property.
8.  On 24 March 1997 the Petrinja local authorities gave the applicant’s house to Z.L. and M.L. (“the occupants”) for temporary use because their house had been destroyed during the war.
9.  On 10 June 1998 the applicant obtained a judgment from the Petrinja Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Petrinji) ordering the occupants to vacate his house within fifteen days. The judgment became final on 30 September 1998 when the Sisak County Court (Županijski sud u Sisku) dismissed the occupants’ appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment.
10.  Since the occupants refused to vacate the applicant’s house, on 24 November 1998 the applicant applied for the enforcement of the above judgment to the Petrinja Municipal Court. On 7 December 1998 the court issued an eviction order.
11.  However, pursuant to the laws in force, the eviction order could not be carried out until the State secured alternative accommodation for the occupants. The court repeatedly requested the local authorities to find temporary accommodation for the occupants and enquired with the competent Ministry on the state of repair of their house. The local authorities informed the court that they were unable to find accommodation for the occupants.
12.  On 28 June 2001 the competent Ministry informed the court that the reconstruction of the occupants’ house was completed.
13.  On 8 November 2001 the occupants vacated the applicant’s house. On 12 November 2001 the applicant repossessed the house.
8.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Mardin.
9.  On 22 December 1980 the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation.
10.  On 10 March 1981 the Diyarbakır Martial Law Court ordered the applicant's detention on remand.
11.  On 14 September 1981 the public prosecutor's office at the Diyarbakır Martial Law Court filed a bill of indictment with the latter, accusing the applicant of membership of an illegal organisation. The public prosecutor's office requested that the applicant be convicted and sentenced under Article 168 § 1 of the Criminal Code.
12.  On 19 February 1985 the Diyarbakır Martial Law Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to twenty-four years' imprisonment. Before the Diyarbakır Martial Law Court, the applicant was tried together with 624 co-suspects.
13.  Following the applicant's appeal, his case was referred to the Military Court of Cassation.
14.  On 10 April 1990 the Military Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the Diyarbakır Martial Law Court on the ground that latter had misinterpreted the domestic law in respect of the offence in question.
15.  On 29 July 1990 the applicant was released from detention.
16.  Subsequent to promulgation of Law no. 3953 on 27 December 1993, which abolished the jurisdiction of the Martial Law Courts, the Diyarbakır Assize Court acquired jurisdiction over the applicant's case.
17.  On 13 July 1998 the Diyarbakır Assize Court held that the offence fell within the scope of Article 168 § 2 and consequently the statutory time‑limit under Articles 102 and 104 of the Criminal Code had expired. It accordingly ordered that the criminal proceedings against the applicant be terminated.
18.  On 10 September 1998 the judgment became final in respect of the applicant.